NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #15

[nauticant]

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), has brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claims to be a transwoman, that is observed as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity.

The Employment Tribunal hearing started on Monday 3 February 2025 and was expected to continue for 2 weeks although once it was in to the second week it was looking like this would not happen. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February.

Access to view the hearing remotely was obtainable by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access.

However, as a result of problems with the livestreaming, apparently, as a result of a very large number of observers, remote public access to the hearing was suspended on Tuesday 11 February. It was suggested that it might be reinstated at some point but don't count on it.

The hearing is being live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr. This also has threadreaderapp archives of live-tweeting of the sessions of the hearing for those who can't follow on Twitter, for example: archive.is/xkSxy.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: https://nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse
Thread 2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267591-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-thread-2
Thread 3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268347-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-3
Thread 4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268942-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-4
Thread 5: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269149-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-5
Thread 6: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269635-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-6
Thread 7: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5270365-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-7
Thread 8: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271511-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-8
Thread 9: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271596-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-9
Thread 10: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271723-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-10
Thread 11: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272046-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-11
Thread 12: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272276-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-12
Thread 13: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272398-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-13
Thread 14: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272939-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-14

🎶It's moving on up, it's moving on up🎶

Not sure it is clear from TT. That's the problem with not having public access. TT does an amazing job but it is hard to follow the details sometimes. I think KS was very unwise to help draft the Datix.

@nauticant
I think we all remarked upon his constant attempts to get NC to use his terminology, including the use of cis to try and make us seen as some subset of Woman during the hearing.

Also reflected in his/his lawyers attempt to get a court order for Sandie to call him she/her. A dangerous precedent, if it had been successful, for future cases.

His attempt to compare a woman asking not to be treated by a male doctor to a racist woman refusing treatment from a medic who happened to be black. So very wrong.

Would you normally help a colleague submit a datix of an incident you hadn't witnessed. Seems a bit off to a non medical person.

This is a direct result of them being captured for so long and being part of the Stonewall Champions Scheme.

Stonewall told employers that they should capture data on gender not on sex. They misrepresented the law.

So although many employers now have left the scheme they've left those structures in place believing them to be the right way to capture data about employees/ members.

The crazy thing is, DU could have had a quiet word with his supervisors about Sandie, arranged for shift patterns to be changed etc so they wouldn't ever meet in the CR and we would never know how vindictive and self centered he is and the world, let alone Scotland, wouldn't be peaking.
Thank you for the SUNLIGHT 🌞

Blimey! That article doesn't mince its words!

ETA: I wonder if some of the papers are enjoying the freedom to call him "him". It means they can report more accurately and say what they want to say without falling foul of media guidelines on she/her etc.

Lead story on BBC Reporting Scotland again this evening.

When they instructed solicitors, NHS Fife thought they and Upton were on the same team.

It's beautiful to watch, really 🙂

You will have to trawl the sub stack sorry. As I recollect it was within the cross examination of last night's disclosures. Think it occurred when Upton was being asked about being chased for a response in February. It was an oops moment when counsel for the claimant pointed out e mail actually said inquiry.

"Wasn’t that the key point in the ERCC tribunal? That there was no way she could have framed the question asked on behalf of the service user without being accused of inappropriate behaviour?"

The ruling said that GC beliefs are WORIADS but how they are expressed must not infringe on the rights or dignity of others. So, again, lots of room for different interpretation.

Question for the legal peeps on here. If KS does become Respondent 3 will she be automatically supported by JR or will she have to find / fund her own legal team? What if she doesn't want to be supported by JR?

Exactly. Womens hip shape/movement is unique to women and isn't something that can be copied or surgically altered.
Seeing a TW walk always brings to mind the scene in 'Some like it Hot' where Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon watch Marilyn Monroe walk along the train platform and one turns to the other and says something along the lines of 'look at that, it's a whole different sex'.

I didn't understand this bit - DU was asked about the summary sheet and asked to confim that there were more details covered in the full submission. I assume that is in the bundle - does it show DU or KS submitting the datix

@KnottyAuty I think NC's point here was that the Datix had an attachment, which wasn't disclosed in the bundle or the later bundle or even the naughty naughty yesterday bundle.

Dr U said the omission wasn't his fault. He's not good with computer stuff, if you remember.

I might just reinvent myself as naughtynaughtylateBundle for July. Identities can be so transient!

Like jello on springs

Not allowing new birth certificates to be issued and the old record to be unavailable is absolutely central. And urgently necessary. The GRA must be repealed and rewritten. Even in the difficult DSD cases you mention, an amendment may rarely need to be made (usually in childhood) and is marked as an amendment in the record. If people born men cannot easily be recognised as such in their paperwork when they choose to live as women then their rights cannot be restricted without a court case, a medical examination and a thirty page definition in the law each time the question arises.

And it is clear that their rights to women's spaces have to be fairly and routinely restricted without a massive legal and medical intervention each time.

@Jerabilis I would say Fife/JR would represent as KS acted in her capacity as an employee here. They are responsible for the actions of their employees within the employment contract.

It's insidious, the way that the Upton side has tried to use language (mostly without success, fortunately) to advance their case. "Cis" to refer to actual women, as though "trans" is equally valid. Attempting to make the judge tell Sandie Peggie to refer to Dr Upton as "she/her", as if that very contentious issue has already been decided.

Dr Upton has definitely had the chance to stand up in court and say "I am a woman" and Sandie Peggie has been able to say "No you're not". What I'd like to hear now is someone saying on behalf of the NHS board "Our policy is that Dr Upton is right in this matter and Sandie Peggie is wrong". Which they've obviously been trying to enforce by their actions, but will any individual actually take responsibility for it in open court, with a highly competent barrister ready to take them apart? That won't be a role that anyone will want to take on.

Even in the difficult DSD cases you mention, an amendment may rarely need to be made (usually in childhood)

In my recollection, wasn't the posterchild for the whole Gender Recognition Act the unfortunate youngster (Joel?) whose sex was genuinely ambiguous because of serious congenital problems? He was initially raised as a girl and had to fight for the right to change his recorded sex.

I've been asked by a more junior colleague to help them complete a datix but it's been more about what section to put what information in rather than the actual content. There were boxes to tick and sometimes there wasn't an option that exactly fitted the incident eg the department where the incident happened wasn't on the form. This was a good few years ago so may be different now.

“The ruling said that GC beliefs are WORIADS but how they are expressed must not infringe on the rights or dignity of others. So, again, lots of room for different interpretation.”

It was the Forstater Appeal Tribunal which established the position you set out.

My recollection of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre employment tribunal re constructive dismissal etc was that - taking account of the legal position established in Forstater - NC’s focus was on whether there was any way the claimant could have asked for advice on what to say to the service user about whether the ERCC worker supporting her would be female without the request for advice resulting in the claimant being subjected to a disciplinary for asking the question.

NC is going down a similar route here - establishing that there was no hope of the claimant raising concerns about single sex spaces without being subject to a complaint from Upton.

I think the position is more complex than that. NHS Fife had no option other than instructing NHS Scotland Central Legal Office. NHS Boards hate doing that and leave it to the last possible moment. They know best even when they c**k up even more important legal issues. How far did Fife take this without legal advice? They also hate paying legal fees. CLO charge on a very reasonable per hour basis (compared to another decent Edinburgh Firm). They hoped to exclude Upton and will have had to get permission to instruct an English KC. The chances of getting costs covered for vicarious liability/separate representation for Upton are slim. Andrew Watson needs to reflect and advise if Upton and KC need separate representation. GMV has deep pockets.

That's it !!! I couldn't remember the whole quote, thank you 🙂

In my role as a senior nurse I have often helped people submit Datix reports, either because they don’t know how to or sometimes because they are scared to do so.

If someone tells me about a patient safety incident and they haven’t formally reported it, the onus is then on me to assist them.

Meant BMA not GMA.